Show Program

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' Beyond that, it adds valuable context: error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), return type ('single JSON object'), and API endpoint information. This exceeds what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover potential rate limits or auth nuances.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long but information-dense. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, parameter behavior, return type, read-only confirmation, error handling, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and there is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with no output schema and two well-documented parameters, the description covers return shape, failure modes, endpoint context, and parameter defaults. The only minor gap is the internal inconsistency between 'Required parameters: company_id, id' and the claim that company_id defaults when omitted, which is a spec nuance rather than a fatal omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record, with advice to resolve it via the list tool. It also explicitly labels both as required, though this creates a slight tension with the default behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Show detail on the specified Program' – a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies what the tool does. It further clarifies scope by saying 'when you already know which program you want and need its full field set,' which implies it is used after discovery via a list tool. This distinguishes it from list-style siblings, though it does not name an alternative sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which program you want and need its full field set.' It also directs the agent to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which serves as an alternative for id discovery. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.